pension reform | Pension360

CalPERS Responds To Criticism Of Plan To Boost Pensions

CalPERS is holding a hearing today seeking public comment on a set of potential rules that would open the door for many workers to increase their pensions.

The rules would introduce 98 new forms of “pensionable compensation”, or income that is counted when calculating a worker’s ultimate pension benefit.

But many interested parties didn’t wait until the hearing to voice their opinions. California Gov. Jerry Brown was among the first to voice his displeasure at the potential rules, as they contradict certain sections of the reform law he passed in 2012.

“This disregards the rule that pensions will be based on normal monthly pay and not on short-term, ad hoc pay increases,” Brown wrote in a letter to the CalPERS board. “I urge the board to vote against these regulations and instead request a new draft that excludes temporary pay upgrades from employee pension calculations.”

Other big players weighed in as well. Jon Ortiz writes:

Public pension-change advocates, including Democratic San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, say the proposal is another sign that the union-dominated CalPERS board “is doing what they can to resist reforms. … They’re in favor of anything that expands benefits.”

Elk Grove City Manager Laura Gill said including temporary upgrade pay “really does invite spiking” and threatens to erode savings from pension changes the Sacramento suburb has enacted the past couple of years, such as city employees paying their share of pension costs.

If such practices became standard, “it would put us backward from all the work we’ve done to have a sustainable and sound pension system,” Gill said.

Unions responded as well, but they were receptive to CalPERS’ plan. From the Sacramento Bee:

Mike Durant, president of the union-backed Peace Officers Research Association of California, dismissed those kinds of concerns. If a city or the state needs pension relief, he said, “they can bargain it.”

Instead, he said, government employers expect CalPERS to save them from themselves.

“They want to put it on the backs of someone else to make those decisions rather than making it themselves,” he said.

You can bet CalPERS is listening to all this. And the pension fund responded to the criticisms in a statement sent out to numerous newspapers, including the Daily Bulletin:

CalPERS has approached this issue with full transparency and sought stakeholder input along the way, including employee and employer feedback. The purpose of the public hearing is to seek even greater input on what compensation should and should not be counted toward pensions.

While reasonable people may disagree about what aspects of a public servant’s compensation should count toward a pension, an editorial should stick to the facts and not try to inflame readers with inaccurate terms like pension spiking. Pay for a service is still compensation at the end of the day. Our staff made a recommendation based on a good-faith interpretation of the law. If changes need to be made, we welcome the public’s input.

CalPERS is holding a hearing today to gather the public’s comments on the proposed rules. Once the hearing is wrapped up, the full CalPERS board will vote on the rules, likely on Wednesday.

CalPERS Is Proposing 98 Ways To Boost Member Pensions

CalPERS is drafting new regulation that could boost worker pensions, but critics say the rules would fly in the face of much of Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2012 reform efforts. CalPERS is holding a public hearing on the issue tomorrow (Tuesday August 19) to seek the public’s feedback.

The new regulations could increase pension benefits for many workers by adding 98 new types of “pensionable compensation”—or, in other words, types of pay that can be counted toward pension benefits.

For example, workers would receive pension boosts for holding various professional certifications, for being bilingual or for working at the same job for a long period of time.

[Read the full list of types of pensionable compensation at the bottom of this post].

From a CalPERS press release:

The proposed new regulation is intended to clarify the types of pensionable compensation items that state, public agencies, and school employers report to CalPERS as part of a new member’s retirement benefit. The most common items excluded as pensionable for new PEPRA members are bonuses, uniform allowance, and any ad hoc payments. Members who were hired on or after January 1, 2013 are considered new members under PEPRA.

Compensation that is reportable for classic members is unaffected under the new regulation.

One category of pensionable compensation would be Incentive Pay.

A few other interesting special pay items:

As the CalPERS released indicates, these changes would only apply to new hires. But critics say the new rules would directly undermine California 2012 pension reforms, which also only dealt with new hires. From a LA Daily News editorial:

At issue is what counts as income on which pensions are calculated. The 2012 law was clear: Pensions for new employees should be based on their “normal monthly rate of pay or base pay.” Whereas current employees can boost their pension calculations by also including “special compensation” for “special skills, knowledge, abilities, work assignment, workdays or hours, or other work conditions,” the Legislature didn’t include those sorts of extra pay items for new employees.

The hearing over the draft regulations will be held on Tuesday at 9:30 am pacific time.

It will also be live-streamed at www.calpers.ca.gov.

[iframe src=”<p style=” margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;”> <a title=”View Proposed Adoption Pensionable Compensation on Scribd” href=”http://www.scribd.com/doc/237135073/Proposed-Adoption-Pensionable-Compensation” style=”text-decoration: underline;” >Proposed Adoption Pensionable Compensation</a></p><iframe class=”scribd_iframe_embed” src=”//www.scribd.com/embeds/237135073/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true” data-auto-height=”false” data-aspect-ratio=”undefined” scrolling=”no” id=”doc_62392″ width=”100%” height=”600″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>”]

Providence Mayor Tries to Stall Deposition Until After Election in Lawsuit Over Pension Actuarial Errors

Early in 2013, Providence filed a lawsuit against the actuarial firm, Buck Consultants, that had served as the city’s actuary for the previous 90 years.

It takes a pretty serious falling out to break off such a long-standing relationship, but Providence is alleging that Buck made a serious mistake when crunching the numbers behind the city’s recent set of pension reforms.

When the city was designing its pension reforms, it asked Buck to calculate how much the city would save from various policies, namely the suspension of cost-of-living increases. So that’s what Buck did.

But the city alleges that Buck made serious mathematical errors in its estimations, overstating the city’s savings by $700,000 a year and in turn boosting its pension liabilities by $10.8 million over the next 28 years.

The court case is now underway, and the time has come for Mayor Taveras to be deposed. But Taveras says he needs to wait until after the Sep. 9^thgubernatorial primary to answer questions under oath. Buck says “no way.” From the Providence Journal:

The city last week filed an emergency motion for a protective order seeking to postpone until after the primary election Taveras’ questioning under oath about his decisions regarding changes to the city’s retirement system. It asked, too, that U.S. District Chief Judge William E. Smith limit his deposition to three hours, given the “press of city business.”

…

Buck Consultants LLC — which performed financial analyses for the city since 1920 — argues that Taveras’ deposition is imperative to its defense against the city’s lawsuit.

Buck looks to question Taveras, who it identifies as the central witness in the case, not only about his decision-making in pushing for an ordinance suspending cost-of-living increases for retirees but also statements he has made in the course of his campaign for governor. Buck asserts that its lawyers should be allowed to depose Taveras “while the campaign is ongoing” based on his comments.

“Mayor Taveras is not a mere bystander to this dispute,” Buck writes. “As the City’s highest elected official, he is a critically important witness.”

What could Taveras be worried about? For one, Taveras is saying the he wouldn’t have passed the reforms if he’d known about the math errors.

But Buck accuses Taveras of signing off on the series of reforms after he was aware of the errors.

According to Buck, Taveras is using the actuarial mistakes as a campaign ploy to save face on a policy that took money out of the pockets of many voters.

Taveras and his challenger, Gina Raimondo, have been see-sawing back on forth in the polls since last year.

Screen shot 2014-08-13 at 10.48.29 AM — Credit: Wikipedia

Photo: “Angel Taveras headshot” by City of Providence, Office of the Mayor – City of Providence, Office of the Mayor. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Meet the Nine People Tasked With Reforming New Jersey’s Pension System

When it comes to pension reform, this isn’t New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s first rodeo.

Christie signed his state’s initial pension overhaul back in 2010. A major part of the law was the requirement that New Jersey slowly work its way up to paying its full actuarially required contribution into the state pension system.

But that plan never came to fruition, as Christie is using a large portion of the state’s pension contributions this year and next to fill budget shortfalls elsewhere.

Now, Christie says he’s going to give pension reform another shot. Last week, he announced plans to create a panel to analyze the state’s pension system and brainstorm ideas for cutting costs. From the NJ Star-Ledger:

The Pension and Health Benefit Study Commission will review the history of New Jersey’s public retirement system, which has been neglected by governors of both parties since 1997, who did not make required contributions whenever they ran into budgeting difficulties. Christie’s special commission will also look at reforms implemented in other states and then recommend changes to the governor.

Although Christie has been on the town-hall circuit this summer speaking of the need to reduce current contributions for public workers, those benefits in some cases are protected by the state constitution – and could be hard to claw back.

Christie, however, may be able to reduce health benefits, which are not as strongly protected as pensions under New Jersey law. He could also try to increase pension contributions for future workers, and their retirement age, as he did in 2011. Still, a Democratic-controlled Legislature is unlikely to go along with those moves.

Today, he announced the people that will populate the panel. Here’s a breakdown of who they are:

Thomas J. Healey – Partner, Healey Development LLC

Mr. Healey joined Goldman, Sachs & Co. in 1985 to create the Real Estate Capital Markets Group, and founded the Pension Services Group in 1990. He became a Partner in 1988, a Managing Director in 1996, and remains a Senior Director of Goldman Sachs. Prior to joining Goldman Sachs, Mr. Healey served as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury for Domestic Finance under President Ronald Reagan.

He is Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation Investment Committee and is actively involved with other charitable institutions. Mr. Healey graduated from Georgetown University in 1964 and Harvard Business School in 1966.

Tom Byrne – Founder, Byrne Asset Management:

Tom founded Byrne Asset Management in 1998. He serves as the Managing Director and Head of Equity Portfolio Management and brings over 35 years experience in the securities industry to his clients.
Governor Chris Christie appointed Tom to the New Jersey State Investment Council. The Council oversees New Jersey’s public pension fund assets, currently about $73 billion. Tom also serves as a trustee and treasurer of The Fund for New Jersey and is a trustee of several other civic organizations. He also served two terms as Chairman of the Democratic State Committee in New Jersey.

Tom is a graduate of Princeton University (1976) and Fordham Law School (1981).

Ray Chambers –Special Envoy, United Nations:

Ray Chambers is a United Nations Special Envoy for Financing the Health Millennium Development Goals and For Malaria (United States). [He] is a philanthropist and humanitarian who has directed most of his efforts towards at-risk youth.

He is the founding Chairman of the Points of Light Foundation and co-founder, with Colin Powell, of America’s Promise — The Alliance for Youth. He also co-founded the National Mentoring Partnership and served as Chairman of The Millennium Promise Alliance.
Chambers is the founder and Co-Chairman of Malaria No More, with Peter Chernin, President of News Corporation. He is taking a leave of absence from that role to focus on his appointment as the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Malaria.

Leonard W. Davis – Chief Investment Officer, SCS Commodities Corp:

Mr. Davis has organized and managed private equity, technology, and natural resource companies. He has been the principal financial manager in a private equity company and has been the Chief Financial Officer to the lead investor of a natural resource company active in metals and energy.

Mr. Davis received his B.S. in Accounting from Spring Garden College and is a Certified Public Accountant.

Carl Hess – Managing Director of Americas, Towers Watson:

Carl A. Hess (age 52) has served as Managing Director, The Americas, of Towers Watson since February 1, 2014, and has also served as the Managing Director of Towers Watson’s Investment business since January 1, 2010. Prior to that, he worked in a variety of roles over 20 years at Watson Wyatt, lastly as Global Practice Director of Watson Wyatt’s Investment business. Mr. Hess is a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries and the Conference of Consulting Actuaries, and a Chartered Enterprise Risk Analyst. He has a B.A. cum laude in logic and language from Yale University.

Ethan Kra – Founder, Ethan Kra Actuarial Services LLC:

Ethan Kra is an independent actuary, specializing in litigation support/expert witness, advice on multi-employer plan exposures and strategies and the financial aspects of executive benefits. Previously, he was a Senior Partner and Chief Actuary-Retirement of Mercer, where he consulted in the areas of the design and funding of pension and group insurance benefits, structuring and funding of non-qualified pension benefits and the proper accounting for expense of employee benefits.

He specializes in analyzing the economic and accounting implications of financing strategies and vehicles for employee and executive benefits. For over 17 years, he chaired Mercer’s Actuarial Resource Network, a committee of the senior technical actuaries throughout the United States.

Ken Kunzman – Partner, Connell Foley LLP

Kenneth F. Kunzman was Chairman of the Connell Foley Executive Committee from 1995 to 2002. He has been a partner in the firm since 1968 and has been responsible for a variety of areas of law.

Additionally, Mr. Kunzman serves as Chairman and Trustee of the Corella A. and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation of Princeton, NJ which provides scholarships for needy students of 26 colleges based upon community service. He is Trustee Emeritus of Caldwell College, former Trustee of St. Peter’s Prep, and Co-Chairman Emeritus of Seton Hall University Pirate Blue Fund. Mr. Kunzman served as Captain, US Air Force from 1962-1965.

Mr. Kunzman serves as a member of the Board of Trustees and the Executive Committee of the Scholarship Fund for Inner City Children and is the former Chairman of the Essex Legal Services Foundation, where he continues to serve as a Trustee.

Larry Sher – Partner, October Three Consulting LLC

Larry Sher is a member of the actuarial consulting team and part of the senior leadership for October Three. Larry also is head of our dispute resolution practice, which provides support to clients in disputes related to their retirement plans, both in litigation and otherwise. Larry’s experience in this area is extensive, having served as an arbitrator outside of litigation and as an expert in many lawsuits, including prominent cases involving cash balance pension plans. Larry is a highly sought after expert and advisor.

Margaret Berger – Principal, Mercer Consulting

One thing is certain: the panel has no shortage of impressive resumes. But it’s ideas, not resumes, that will effectively reform New Jersey’s Pension System. Pension360 will keep you updated on subsequent developments surrounding the The Pension and Health Benefit Study Commission.

With Lawmakers In Recess and Elections On Horizon, Pennsylvania’s Pension Debate is Heating Up

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett has spent the first week of August touring the state as part of his re-election campaign, and he’s using the opportunity to hammer home Pennsylvania’s need to lower the costs of its retirement system, and tout his policy ideas on the subject.

One idea that Corbett has frequently proposed is shifting some state workers from their defined-benefit plans into 401(k)-style plans. Nearly every state burdened with pension obligations has considered this policy option. Many have even implemented it. From PennLive:

Only Alaska and Michigan have shifted new hires into 401(k)-style programs, but nearly a dozen states have crafted hybrid programs featuring smaller lifetime pension plans along with a 401(k)-style plan, and some states, such as Florida, are giving new employees the option of going entirely into a 401(k)-style plan, our pal Deb Erdley at The Tribune-Review reports.

Corbett’s repeated harping on the pension issue has gotten him, to some extent, what he wanted back in June: a debate. Even if state lawmakers remain on vacation, many experts have been weighing in on the issue.

Richard Johnson, director of the Washington-based Urban Institute’s Program on Retirement Policy, makes this note on the switch from DB to DC:

“These defined-benefit plans work very well if you’re going to stay for 30-35 years, but they require a pretty large employee contribution, and they don’t work very well for the shorter-term worker,” Johnson tells the newspaper.

Stephen Herzenberg of the Keystone Research Center points to the experiences of other states as an argument against switching to a 401(k)-style plan:

In fact, when Florida created this choice, its traditional pension was overfunded. In a decade-plus since, the investment returns of Florida’s traditional pension have been 10 percent higher than the return on individual accounts. Over the 30 years that typical retirement contributions grow, this difference would become a one-third gap in savings available for retirement.

Alaska and Michigan did shift all new hires into 401(k)-style plans but the switch did not, in fact, work. Pension debt in both states grew.

Rhode Island did save some money but only because of deep cuts in traditional pensions, including for current retirees. The state then wasted some savings on a “hybrid plan” for new employees that included 401(k)-type accounts with low returns and high fees.

Guaranteed pensions need sound management and can get in trouble if politicians fail to make required contributions. But long term, there’s no beating the high returns of professional managers and the low costs of pooled pension assets. That’s why Pennsylvania’s current pension design is the best deal, long term, for taxpayers and retirees.

Nathan A. Benefield, Vice President of Policy Analysis at the Commonwealth Foundation, took issue with that critique:

Herzenberg claims that reforms moving state workers to a 401(k)-style retirement plan in other states have “failed” because their traditional, non-401(k) pension funds lost value during the most recent recession. Huh?

Every state¹s pension fund lost value when the stock market fell, including Pennsylvania’s, which went from being fully funded to today having more than $50 billion (and growing) in unfunded liabilities. That’s about $10,000 per household in the state.

Now here’s the rub. States like Michigan and Alaska would have lost more from their pension funds had they not started to convert new employees into a 401(k). In fact, without reform, Michigan’s unfunded liability would be upwards of $4.3 billion more.

Thankfully, because lawmakers in the Wolverine state acted early, they saved taxpayers those additional costs. Pennsylvania would have also had substantial savings had we followed Michigan’s lead.

Corbett has tried desperately to make pension reform a campaign issue. It has worked. He’s gotten the media, thought leaders and everyday citizens talking about Pennsylvania’s retirement system and the policy options to address the issues Corbett foresees.

That’s healthy for the state—but make no mistake, it’s probably just as healthy for Corbett’s election chances.

Screen shot 2014-08-08 at 10.35.12 AM — Credit: Wikipedia

He’s been gaining ground on challenger Tom Wolf in recent weeks.

Judge: Unions Must Use Different Argument If They Want To Overturn Baltimore Reforms

After several years and numerous legal battles, a federal judge today affirmed that a series of pension reforms enacted by Baltimore in 2010 were constitutional.

But the judge, Barbara Milano Keenan of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, left the door open for unions to again challenge the reforms. This time, unions will have to bring a different legal argument to the table.

Quick context: In 2010, Baltimore overhauled its police and fire pension systems and implemented reforms—higher employee contributions, higher retirement ages and lower COLAs—which were projected to save the city $64 million annually. Details from the Baltimore Sun:

Under the mayor’s plan, firefighters and police have been required to increase contributions to the pension fund — now 10 percent of their salaries. Many officers were told that they would no longer be able to retire after 20 years, but would have to stay on the force for 25 years to receive their pensions. Retired workers also lost what was called the “variable benefit,” an annual increase tied to the stock market. Instead, the youngest retirees receive no annual increase through the variable benefit, and older retirees receive a 1 percent or 2 percent annual increase.

The bolded section is key. The first legal challenge against the reforms centered around the decrease in COLAs. Unions argued that the change was illegal because Maryland, like many states, treats pension benefits as contracts that cannot be impaired.

Most states sidestep the contract issue by applying reforms to new hires only. But Baltimore had decreased COLAs for retirees as well.

So, in 2012, a District Court ruled the change illegal, saying “elimination of the variable benefit constituted a substantial impairment of certain members’ contract rights, and that the impairment was not reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose.”

The ruling today overturned the District Court’s decision and re-instated the COLA decreases. The logic behind the ruling, from Reuters:

The appeals court said the reform was a “mere breach of contract, not rising to the level of a constitutional impairment or obligation.”

It also dismissed the notion that allowing the reform to go through would give a city “unfettered discretion to breach its contracts with public employees,” because of protections in Maryland law.

“This contention lacks merit because, under Maryland law, the city is only permitted to make reasonable modifications to its pension plans,” wrote Keenan. “Any reduction in benefits ‘must be balanced by other benefits or justified by countervailing equities for the public’s welfare.’”

But the judge said unions could change their argument, and they might have another shot at overturning the legality of the reforms in court.

Judge Keenan said that unions should argue the city took “private property for public use, without just compensation.”

And unions do plan to keep fighting.

“We have to get with our attorneys and decide which way to go, whether it’s federal or state,” said Rick Hoffman, president of the firefighters union. “I personally think this ruling strengthens our stance.”

Photo: “Ext-Night” by Basilica1 Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

In Illinois, Public Pension Benefits Are Gaining Ground On Worker Salaries

Over the past decade, the average public pension in Illinois has been gradually catching up to the average salary of employees still working.

Critics of increased benefits say this is the result of years of generous salary increases and compounded COLA increases.

Others say that increased pensions are simply the result of higher public sector salaries, which Illinois needs to pay in order to retain good employees.

The Daily Herald reports:

The average 2013 pension was $31,674 for retirees in nine statewide and metropolitan Chicago public pension systems for government workers, teachers, legislators, judges and university professors, a Daily Herald analysis shows. That’s 60 percent of the $55,120 average salary for pension fund members who are still working.

Ten years ago, the average pension was less than half of the average salary.

…

The narrowest gap between average salary and average pension is for members of retirement systems where advanced degrees and training are required.

In 2013, the average Teachers’ Retirement System pension was 69.4 percent of the average pay for those still working, according to the system’s annual comprehensive financial report.

Judges have the highest average salary — $183,998 — and highest average pension — $105,341.

The gap between average pay and average pension is widest within retirement systems with more transient employees.

The 108,814 local government employees receiving IMRF benefits in 2013 averaged pensions of $13,243. That was 34.8 percent of the system’s $38,059 average salary. However, that’s still a big change from a decade ago when the average IMRF pension was 27.9 percent of the average salary of workers paying into the system.

One lawmaker told the Daily Herald that, although the upward trend is undoubtedly real, the decreasing gap between pensions and worker salaries has slowed over recent years.

“There was a long period of time where there were rapid (pay) raises in the public sector … (and) that growth is tied to the pension formula,” said state Sen. Daniel Biss, an Evanston Democrat who helped sculpt the state’s most recent pension reform plan. “But a lot has changed and we’ve seen a dramatic slowdown, particularly in the last five years.”

North Carolina Ends Pension Spiking By High-Paid Officials

As of January 1, 2015, highly paid government workers in North Carolina will no longer be able to “spike” their pensions, thanks to a law signed yesterday by North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory.

Pension spiking happens when public workers accumulate sick leave, vacation time, bonuses and other benefits until the year before they retire. In their final year on the job, they cash out all those benefits—inflating their final year salary.

Since final year salaries play a big role in calculating a worker’s pension benefits, spiking can increase a retiree’s annual pension by thousands of dollars per year. The practice is currently legal in most states.

But the practice is now outlawed in North Carolina for all state and local workers who make $100,000 or more annually. From the News & Observer:

The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, comes after The News & Observer in November reported how four community college presidents and their boards converted tens of thousands of dollars in perks to pay as they neared retirement age, creating pension boosts the retirement system will have to subsidize. The retirement system is funded by contributions from employees, taxpayers through employer contributions, and investment returns.

“This law prevents North Carolina state employees from having to subsidize artificially inflated pensions of high earners at the end of their careers,” McCrory said in a statement. “It protects the retirement system from abuse and ensures state employees are rewarded for their important investments in our state.”

State Treasurer Janet Cowell has claimed in the past that pension spiking in the state is limited to only the highest-paid state workers. Thus, the current legislation outlaws spiking for those workers by creating a “contributions cap”. The News & Observer explains:

The law creates a new method of identifying pension spiking through a contributions cap that is based on the actual amount of money state and local employees and employers put into the retirement system. Those hired before Jan. 1 would continue to receive the difference created through the pension spiking, but it would have to be paid for by that unit of government, not the retirement system. Those hired after Jan. 1, would have the choice of the employer paying, the employee paying or a reduced benefit.

The law also returns the pension vesting period for state and local employees to five years. Three years ago it was doubled to 10 years as a cost saving measure, but Cowell’s staff said the savings were minor, roughly $1 million a year, while making the state less competitive in the job market.

“Returning to a five-year vesting period is critical step in North Carolina becoming more competitive in recruitment and retention relative to other public and private employers,” Cowell said in the release.

Unions Rev Up New Appeal In New Jersey Pension Case – Read the Full Complaint Here

Unions lost the first round in the pension case playing out in New Jersey, when a judge ruled last week that New Jersey was too cash-strapped to make its full contribution to the pension system. The state instead diverted that money, totaling over $800 million, towards balancing the state budget.

Unions were hoping, and still are, for a court ruling that would reverse state Gov. Chris Christie’s decision to divert that money.

To that end, attorneys for the labor groups amended their court filings on Wednesday to update their argument that Christie broke the law when he slashed the state’s pension contribution.

The contribution, unions argue, was legally required due to a law that Christie himself signed in 2011. From the Asbury Park Press:

The updated court filings are a step toward a new hearing, expected in August, and fuller vetting of the issue by Jacobson, who said claims about the 2015 budget and pension payments needed time to become “ripe.” Christie made changes in the new budget days after Jacobson’s prior ruling.

“The amended filings reflect the fact that the governor didn’t make the full 2014 payment and made his changes in the 2015 budget,” said NJEA spokesman Steve Baker. “Other than that, there’s no substantive difference in the arguments we’ve had all along.”

Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts pointed to the Republican governor’s past comments on the court case, when Christie called the spending cut “one of the hard choices the people of New Jersey expect me to make.”

“For our state’s families who are already overburdened by high taxes, raising taxes even further would not solve a problem created by decades of neglect and irresponsibility,” Christie also said.

The unions will have to make a stronger argument to Jacobson about Christie’s ability as governor to set fiscal priorities for such things as hospitals, nursing homes, tuition aid and other programs. In the June court hearing, the unions also failed to force Christie to turn $300 million from state surplus as a down payment on the shorted pensions. “The governor determined it would be extremely unwise to not maintain that amount,” Jacobson told the lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Read the full complaint here:

[iframe src=”<p style=” margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;”> <a title=”View Complaint – NJ Education Association on Scribd” href=”http://www.scribd.com/doc/235461708/Complaint-NJ-Education-Association” style=”text-decoration: underline;” >Complaint – NJ Education Association</a></p><iframe class=”scribd_iframe_embed” src=”//www.scribd.com/embeds/235461708/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true” data-auto-height=”false” data-aspect-ratio=”undefined” scrolling=”no” id=”doc_95456″ width=”100%” height=”600″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>”]

Photo: “New Jersey State House” by Marion Touvel Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Los Angeles Pension Reforms Rescinded by Labor Board; City Will Appeal

The Employee Relations Board, a five-member panel that handles labor complaints in Los Angeles’ City Hall, probably didn’t expect to become famous overnight.

But they’ve become a household name in Los Angeles this morning, after news broke that the Board voted to rescind a series of pension reforms passed by Los Angeles in 2012.

The Board ruled that city officials did not properly negotiate the reforms –which reduced pension benefits for new hires and raised retirement ages—with municipal employee unions. From the LA Times:

The Employee Relations Board voted unanimously Monday to order the City Council to rescind a 2012 law scaling back pension benefits for new employees of the Coalition of L.A. City Unions, on the grounds that the changes were not properly negotiated. That law, backed by Mayor Eric Garcetti when he was a councilman, was expected to cut retirement costs by up to $309 million over a decade, according to city analysts.

Ellen Greenstone, a lawyer for the labor coalition, described the vote as a “huge, big deal” — one that shows the city could not unilaterally impose changes in pension benefits on its workforce.

Coalition chairwoman Cheryl Parisi said in a statement that the reduction in benefits, which included a hike in the employee retirement age, “devalues middle-class city workers and their dedication to serving the residents of Los Angeles.

The city’s labor board is a quasi-judicial body that reviews complaints from unions, managers and individual employees. Under the city’s labor ordinance, the panel has the power to invalidate decisions by the council, said the board’s executive director, Robert Bergeson.

If council members do not agree with Monday’s decision, they can file legal paperwork seeking to have a judge overturn it, Bergeson said.

City officials have previously argued that changes in the retirement benefits of future employees do not need to be negotiated. The 2012 law rolling back benefits applied only to employees hired after July 1, 2013. Budget officials had hoped that the reductions would trim the city’s retirement costs by more than $4 billion over a 30-year period.

The board’s decision comes as the city’s contributions for civilian employee retirement costs have climbed from $260 million in 2005 to an estimated $410 million this year, according to a recent budget report.

Los Angeles, meanwhile, plans to appeal the board’s decision. From Bloomberg:

Los Angeles will appeal an administrative panel’s decision to roll back changes in public employee pensions that were expected to save as much as $4.3 billion over 30 years, a spokesman for Mayor Eric Garcetti said.

The second most-populous city’s Employee Relations Board concluded yesterday that officials failed to properly consult with municipal employee unions before pushing through the changes in a City Council vote in October 2012.

The city will appeal the board’s 5-0 vote in court, Jeff Millman, a spokesman for the mayor, said by e-mail. Millman said Garcetti, a 43-year-old Democrat, disagreed with the ruling, although Millman didn’t spell out the reasons.

Los Angeles was expecting to save between $3.9 and $4.3 billion over the next 30 years. If the city does indeed appeal the ruling, the reforms will then land in front of a judge, who will have the final say.

Photo: “LA Skyline Mountains2″ by Nserrano – Own work. Licensed under Creative Commons

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/mhuddelson/public_html/pension360.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 3712